The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-01-22
DR.. MANLEY'S SETTLEMENT OF THE
QUESTION"

Such is the heading of criticism of
an article Of mine, in the last July |
Quarterly, ON Heb. tx. 81, IS, by DR.. o.
d. Miller, of So. Mirrimaek, N. FL. The |
criticism is in THE UNIvERsALIsr of |
Jan. l. 1887 The motives for publishing |
this manifesto, ON the part of its author,
are, 1st., that he would guard against |
| giving the impression that he thought |
my article "a fnality ;" and I'd, he
would not have it supposed that he
intended to slight me. l hardly ex-
pected that my brother would adopt my
views. l hoped he would in the sense
of desiring it, but not in the sense of
expecting it. He evidently devoted
considerable labor to his exposition,
and took it as he did his wife, ''for
better or for worse" did not expect
him to perpetrate divorce at my sug-
gestion. In the next place, he is too
good friend of mine to intend to slight
me.
/ But would rather be sighted than
misrepresented. This last he has done;
but it was evidently not Intentional. If
he had not quoted some of my words,
l should have felt quite certain that he
was discussing my article from memory.
If he had it before him, he looked at it
very carelessly. He should not have
criticised an article that was not worthy
of his earnest and careful examination.
1 never denied the Greek text. l
never made an argument out of the
word once, in the expression, appoint
ed once to de-" I confessed that the
word was against me, and suggested
the only way that then occurred to me
for effectiDg a reconciliation. did not
claim that the text was wrong. When
we say that a passage is elliptical, we
do not mean that it is wrong, but that
it implies more than it expresses. This
is the case with all languages. When
l say II love my mother, and my faith
! er too" the laguage is elliptical. Fill
; ing the ellipsis, and the words will be,
81 love my mother and II love) my faith
: er too" Not that this is similar to the
case in had but it shows the nature
of an ellipsis; and that it is no defect
in the language itself. DR.. Miller gives
his readers to understand, that such a
, man as his brother Marley, breads
himself at once out of the ranks of all
! first-class of exegites." This is sad in
deed. But if it is true, must content
myself with the second class of exegites.
There has been so much written on
this subject, Heb. tx, 81, 2S,) that
: should have hesitated about replying
7 to DR.. Miller, if he had not proposed it.
o AS it is, do not wish to ''slight' an
s oil ! friend. In the first place, l must
correct his impression, that my Quart
s erly article was a reply to one of his in
!. the same magazine, year or so before.
Though he seems very positive, ne
8 speaks only his impressions. l can be
!, more positive, for speak what know.
:, 1t was expressly stipulated, on the part
9 of the lamented editor. the late DIR.
= Thayer, that my article should not be
Q reply to DR.. Miller, ncr to another
9 who wrote about the same time, but
t whose name does not occur to me at
Q this moment. OF course, DIR. Thayer
: did not regard my article as a reply TO
J, any one. Had it been reply to Br.
3 Miller, I should not have passed in
silence several positions, which 1 re
! garded as indefensible; especially that
the death of ''the men appointed" was
3 moral death. Nor is the reason assign
1 ed by Br. Miller for regarding my arti-
5 Gle as a reply to his, a valid one. Every
| subject has natural and logical order
5 of treatment and it SO happened that
3 we both saw what this order was, and
8 followed it. At the time wrote, had
l not seen his article for more than a
year.
7 DR.. Miller says that we ought to
: write so as Ito convince scholars out
, side of our order, even the better class
of exegites of our day." Very good, 1
endeavored to do this, and fancied that
I had been quite successful. am sorry
, my brother does not agree with me;
possibly he may not be so good judge
! in this matter as he thinks he is. 1.-THE
best will err, for have erred myself"
DR.. Miller seems to say, ''If you find
a difficulty, which you cannot remove,
give it up" That is precisely what 1
did, only that suggested a possible
way out of the difficulty. l could not
give up the arguments that sustained
my construction of Heb. tx, 81, %, for
they were independent of the word once.
felt sure that, whether the word were
elliptical and stood for once year, or
some other view, it were better, the
word would be found in some way in
harmony with my construction of the
passage, sustained by such irrefutable
proofs.
In my article, proved from the text
and context, that the men appointed
once to die, were the high priests, in
the discharge of their duties at the an
nual atonement. See Lev. xvi The
kind of death on that occasion. was